Miss D, you ask the question that so many others should be asking. A former good friend of mine and I had a difficult luncheon conversation about 2 months ago. I tried to explain my frustrations about the state of current firearms debate, and he told me he thought the NRA had a 'marketing problem', and they should compromise more. He saw them as being unreasonable about 'cop-killer' bullets, assault weapons and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This very intelligent man had bought into the illogic of the anti-self defense lobby - and questioned it almost not at all. I don't think our friendship will recover from this dispute.
But, step back a moment and logically consider the truth of such talk. For example, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Why would anyone, in their right mind, ever possibly need such firepower?! Well, even the question is rather interesting. Consider the cars we see on our streets. Why does anyone NEED a Jaguar or Mercedes? For that matter, why does anyone NEED a home with 10,000 square feet? We could go on and on with this logic. One of the beauties of America was that we each had the freedom to make such choices. Where else in America do you hear this 'need' argument without it being followed closely by someone expressing disgust with socialism?
But some will say that freedom shouldn't extend to firearms, and again, why would anyone need more than 10 rounds? As my former friend said 'if you can't get it done in 10 rounds, you're probably dead anyway'. Well, try this - let's tell all civilians, the military and our LEO's that NO ONE can have a high capacity magazine. After all - no one needs them. What's that? The military and LEO's say they need them? Well ... why? Oh ... because they're facing bad guys ("BG's"), eh? You mean the same bad guys that give me, my family and other honest civilians concern?
So, are civilians supposed to be better shots than LEO's? Are our lives worth less? Of course, we are less likely to meet these BG's. But, until they started preying on civilians, they probably weren't even known as BG's, right? And, obviously civilians are more often the victim than LEO's.
So, just using that one example, and even from only a self defense argument, their ban on hi-cap mag's is not really logical. Like most of their arguments, it ignores the comparison of cost and benefit. So, if we allow civilians to have high capacity magazines, they will benefit by being better equipped to defend themselves, and fewer honest civilians will be victimized. OTOH, the cost will be that we may have an occasional nut case who will have more bullets available.
We could also discuss the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and how the US v. Miller case actually made an argument for civilians to have military-style weapons. But we can do that another day.
Please stay with us on TFL, go to every firearms web site you have time for - pro and anti. Read the arguments. Learn the facts - and there are facts ... not just feelings. Peruse the legislation that is offered. Soon I think you will begin to notice that the anti-self defense crowd is shrill and emotional in their arguments, and they lace those arguments with emotional fiction and distortions, instead of facts. Give it the 'smell test' as well - which side makes more common sense to you?
One last point - consider the word 'compromise'. What does it mean? It means each side gives something up in order to make a deal. The anti-self defense crowd doesn't see it that way. They think compromise in this case means they'll allow us to keep some firearms, if only they can enact some 'reasonable' reforms, and close a few more 'loopholes'. With logic as disingenuous as that, how much do you think we can trust their assurances and 'facts'?
Regards from AZ
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited June 23, 1999).]